From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from gw.goop.org ([206.170.148.147]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <26094>; Sat, 6 May 2000 17:41:58 -0400
Received: from ixodes.goop.org (ixodes [192.168.0.5])
	by gw.goop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7AA3362002; Sat,  6 May 2000 09:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ixodes.goop.org (Postfix, from userid 223)
	id 22FDDACDE6; Sat,  6 May 2000 09:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <XFMail.20000506093504.jeremy@goop.org>
X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.4 on Linux
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <200005040845.BAA09376@rakitzis.com>
Date:	Sat, 6 May 2000 12:35:04 -0400
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To:	Byron Rakitzis <byron@rakitzis.com>
Subject: Re: building rc on QNX4
Cc:	tjg@star.le.ac.uk, rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu


On 04-May-2000 Byron Rakitzis wrote:
>> to rc with a longer and more meaningful name, like 'rcsh'.
> 
> I guess I can't shut up -- "rcsh" seems like an abominable name.
> 
> rc has nothing to do with csh or any of the {tzck}sh family.
> 
> We may as well call it "rash".

9sh would be consistent with some other names (9term, 9wm, etc).  But I prefer
rc.

        J